Slayer + Rogue SA doesn't stack?

[Mechanical Pear]

On the hybrid classes:

"Parent Classes: Each one of the following classes lists two classes that it draws upon to form the basis of its theme. While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, this usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified."

The slayer is a hybrid of the rogue, and in the sneak attack section of both the slayer and rogue, it doesn't specifically say that it stacks with other classes.

However, I thought Sneak Attack was pretty universally stackable.

So does anyone have any hard rules saying that those two classes would stack SA?

[Saethori]

Mechanical Pear wrote:

On the hybrid classes:

"Parent Classes: Each one of the following classes lists two classes that it draws upon to form the basis of its theme. While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, this usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified."

The Slayer Sneak Attack ability does not specify stacking. The Rogue Sneak Attack ability does not specify stacking.

While it is true that Sneak Attack typically stacks (in a "2d6 from this class, 1d6 from that one" sense), the specific wording of the hybrid classes you noted is an exception to the general rule.

As a result, Slayer does not stack Sneak Attack with rogue... and only rogue*. It will still stack Sneak Attack from any other class, such as Vivisectionist Alchemist.

(* I guess not Ranger either, if you take a Ranger archetype that gives Sneak Attack if one exists)

[ShieldLawrence]

I wouldn't say that a sneak attack pool from two sources as being "redundant abilities" especially since the language for the ability encourages stacking.

[fretgod99]

I don't really think Sneak Attack is one of those things that needs to stack. You just get extra dice to add to your attack when your attack qualifies. And if it dies qualify, add all relevant dice from all sources.

[wraithstrike]

Sneak Attack is not "1d6" or "2d6" as an example. It is "+1d6" meaning it is additional sneak attack damage, and not a set number. Therefore they are added together.

It is even quoted as "This additional damage is 1d6 at 3rd level" from the slayer class.

As an example from another class the cleric just does a flat Xd6 from it's channeling so taking a cleric, and another channeling class won't allow it to stack unless it says it does.

I don't think stack is the right word because it assumes the abilities progress together. In this case you are just getting separate sneak attack damage from each class.

[Captain-Green]

Sneak isn't a redundant ability so will stack, hence the ability states +dice to sneak. 3 rogue/3 slayer will give you +3d6 sneak

Dodge or evasion from different class's for example won't stack to give you improved

[Cavall]

Are we really getting this anal about things? Of course they stack.

[wraithstrike]

Cavall wrote:

Are we really getting this anal about things? Of course they stack.

I agree with you but somewhere at a table a GM is going to deny this without a good argument.

[Mechanical Pear]

Sounds legit.

Cool.

So a slayer with VMC rogue gets full BAB, and ends up with +10d6 SA (though it's very slow going in the early levels).

Loses half of their feats, but slayers can get a lot of bonus combat feats.

Not sure if a good build could be made with this, but I'mma try.

[swoosh]

They don't stack, you have two separate pools of non-stacking sneak attack dice, but both happen to have the same trigger condition and are separate sources, so the point is utterly moot. Instead of a slayer 3/rogue 1 adding 2d6 dice of sneak attack damage to an attack they add 1d6+1d6 instead.

[Rysky]

*approaches thread*

*repulsed by the overwhelming Aura of Pedantism*

[CBDunkerson]

Rysky wrote:

*approaches thread*

*repulsed by the overwhelming Aura of Pedantism*

*blink*

You know what this means?

We've discovered the basis for a 'Protection from Rysky' spell. :]

[Rysky]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Rysky wrote:

*approaches thread*

*repulsed by the overwhelming Aura of Pedantism*

*blink*

You know what this means?

We've discovered the basis for a 'Protection from Rysky' spell. :]

XD

I'm surprised it took anyone this long to notice.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Is "Aura of Pedantism" an actual feature, anyway? How strong is this aura? What is the range? Does it allow a Save? Are there any FAQs in this regard?
Do I have Aura of Pedantism yet?

[Rysky]

*pinches ridge of nose*

Thank you for proving CBD's point :3

[fretgod99]

Does my acumen at Pathfinder rules stack with my knowledge of early Nintendo gaming systems when determining the potency of my Aura?

[Rysky]

That's not being pedantic, that's a non-sequitur. Those don't bother me.

[Deadbeat Doom]

Swimming in the Pedantic Ocean is relaxing as there is no real threat of drowning, what with it being shallow and all.

[Entryhazard]

Untyped bonuses do stack unless stated otherwise in the ability that grants the bonus.

As sneak attack don't say anything about stacking with other damag bonuses and doesn't specify the type of this bonus, it deafults to the general rule.

[magispitt]

Would this sneak attack stack with gestalt though?

[Burnscar]

Entryhazard wrote:

Untyped bonuses do stack unless stated otherwise in the ability that grants the bonus.

As sneak attack don't say anything about stacking with other damag bonuses and doesn't specify the type of this bonus, it deafults to the general rule.

1) Sneak attack is not a bonus.

2) The rules do state otherwise. That's why OP is asking.

Quote:

"Parent Classes: Each one of the following classes lists two classes that it draws upon to form the basis of its theme. While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, this usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified."

That's a specific rule governing interaction between hybrid and parent classes.

Obviously, sneak attack from multiple sources should stack. But the general rules about bonus types don't come into this argument, and they certainly don't supercede the text quoted above, if said text applies.

Is rogue sneak attack and slayer sneak attack 'redundant abilities'? Maybe. Maybe not. It's not a well-defined term.

I personally suspect it was intended to indicate that features like Channel Energy(paladin/warpriest), rage(barbarian/bloodrager) and unarmed strike(monk/brawler) should follow seperate progressions, instead of stacking. I base this on the fact that the text never indicate that you lose one of the abilities, so it's an elegant way of handling most of them.

Sneak attack is wierd, and so gets stuck in a wierd place. But then again, silly rulings about sneak attack have happened before; just look at how Vivisectionist interacts with non-rogue sources of sneak attack - it's hilarious.

[Ithsay the Unseen]

magispitt wrote:

Would this sneak attack stack with gestalt though?

Gestalting generally gives an either/or choice when picking features; in the case of Sneak Attack, having two classes to choose from is like having two 4-point class skills (e.g., Alchemist-Oracle); you get the benefit of an enlarged class skill list, but still have four skill points per level (plus race/intelligence/favored class modifiers). Likewise, having two sources of sneak attack IN GESTALT just means +d6 at first level, +d6/further two levels...

Now, in multiclassing, I'm in favor of "stacking" SA bonus die from different source classes, even w/o explicit language. YMMV.

[Chess Pwn]

The problem could be considered same source/same ability and thus they could be read to not stack.

Similar to a monk/brawler multiclass, they have 2 IUS progressions, not one.

I'm of the view that they stack, but this is one of the only places it's not specifically mentioned.